Council meeting, Feb. 16

A 12-minute exchange during the Feb. 16 council meeting demonstrates why Councilman Lance MacLean shouldn’t be on the city council.

On camera, MacLean reprimands Councilwoman Cathy Schlicht for asking questions about how the city spends taxpayers’ money. At first, MacLean exerts effort to control his anger, but he loses it. He insults Schlicht, saying she is “disingenuous,” “asking gotcha questions,” “blindsiding the staff” and “not being professional.” His reaction follows Schlicht’s comment that she won’t continue requiring high-level administrators to attend a special meeting to answer her questions about the check register. After 12 minutes, MacLean indicates he’s not going to tolerate Schlicht’s questions without advance notice.

Tag-team Councilman Frank Ury jumps in, saying to Schlicht, “I’m only trying to help you define what you need.” No one – not even the Boy Scouts in the audience – should believe the majority members, MacLean, Ury and Kelley (MUK), want to help Schlicht. Watch the tape at [Video clip removed from the City of Mission Viejo website] Under City Council Summary on the left, choose item A under New Business.

Council members – even minority ones – have the prerogative of asking questions of city employees. MacLean at the end of his tantrum tells Schlicht how and when she shall ask questions. Schlicht at the end of her comments says she will continue asking whenever she sees the need.

If residents who watched the meeting wonder when the council came up with an affordable housing forum, the “a” word wasn’t mentioned, and no vote was taken during the open session. Ury carefully avoided saying “affordable” during his comments at the end of the meeting and announced he’s scheduling a housing meeting. Clearly, the city has been mentioning the “a” word behind closed doors. Read about the city’s shenanigans on Brad Morton’s blog at http://missionviejodispatch.com/2009/02/18/not-in-my-school-district-high-intensity-housing-density-special-city-meeting/#comments

As background, the council majority in 2006 used the excuse the state forced the city to rezone parcels to meet affordable housing goals. To the contrary, the state became involved when Ury and MacLean acted as an ad hoc committee and threw out the city’s affordable housing plan. Only because the city was without a plan as a result of Ury and MacLean’s action did the state step in and decertify the city’s housing element. The council majority also left the door open in 2006 for an advocacy group to sue the city over affordable housing. The cost of the lawsuit hasn’t been reported, but the amount was at least $500,000, and a city hall insider says it was more than $1 million.

Residents who live near Jeronimo and Los Alisos or in neighborhoods impacted by traffic on those arterials should attend the so-called Open Forum on housing. It will begin at 6 p.m. on Tues., Feb.24, in the council chamber at city hall. The city has apparently decided to bail out Target by buying the vacant lot on Los Alisos to build an affordable housing project. The price of the parcel is $20 million. Does the city now envision itself as a housing developer, interfering in the private sector and bailing out a wealthy corporation? In the real world, property owners are either adjusting their prices to what the market will bear or sitting on properties while waiting for the economy to recover.